If you could come up with something not profitable but that significantly defrays expenses to some degree, that would be a more achievable goal.

If the short term was going to be losing money, but not all your money, with long term prospects, that might survive long enough to get a Grant, a tax break or even an IPO.

But there is a need for solid business plans.

If you are a little more cut throat and your goal was to get private space going rather than making money then go right ahead, but manage your cashflow long enough to get infrastructure built and actual hardware flying. That way when you can't make enough money to pay of your debt you can go bankrupt and sell all the gear. That way player number two doesn't face the hideous start-up costs.

General rule of thumb is that the first player into a new field loses his shirt.

what you said is thinking the long-run way I have in mind and shows a good sense for comparative thinking simlar to compartive analysis.

Hello, ralphbuttigieg,

as far as I posted about it I didn't have in mind profits etc. yet. I only wanted to mention that lunar mining products are useful in principal - I didn't think that to use them really is profitable or even would reduce costs already. This still has to be checked, considered, investigated, inquired, analysed, researched etc.

In general it looks to me as if the fact that the man still is doing business, spending vacations and acting on Earth only causes him to view at lunar products, space products and products of/from other planets as something needed on, brought to and used on Earth only. But regarding the Bush Plan and NASA's approaches, concepts and tassks as well as regarding Elon Musks and even JP Aerospace's visions lunar products etc. are to be considered under the needs of Mars merely.

The lunar He3 may be interesting for JP aerospace - but this may be valid particularly under the aspect that John Powell has said that he can imagine to fly an ATO to Mars. Of course that ATO doesn't need He3 on Mars because of the atmospherical conditions there. But if his ATO goes to Mars one day then more ATOs might be around and more Ascenders might be required. The need of Helium might be increased because of Mars and because of the Moon. Then the price of Helium might be inÂ´creased - and all of the space travel companies might be glad to have access to lunar Helium.

Helium mostly is used to pressurize tanks. On Mars there is no Helium - or not that much at least. But rockets of a kind might go there that need pressurization. Then Helium is needed there. So it might be that it must be carried there. It will be cheaper to send it frrom the Moon than to send it from Earth because it is cheaper to launch a rocket from the lunar surface into a lunar orbit than to launch a rocket from the earthian surface into an earthian orbit. He3 is lighter than the Helium-isotope used on Earth - this might reduce the costs another time.

Of course you are right up to now regarding Earth - unless JP Aerospace keeps to be forced to realease the Helium at arrivale of the Ascender at the Dark Sky Station...

Making lots of money has never been the only reason to explore. Many explorers died paupers. intangibles such as knowledge and glory have always been important.

Having said that, theres not going to be much happening on the Moon or anywhere else if space remains expensive. Thats why nobody has gone back theirfor decades.

Now there are two ways to reduce costs. One way is to develop cheaper transportation methods. Thats what companies like SpaceX are doing. Another way is to reduce your transportation requirements. Thats what the Zubrin in-situ and the ultra-light (promoted here by Mr Speck) approaches are about.

I expect both to converge about with the first commercial space station . Expect the first private moon shot about 5 years after it becomes operational.

Another is to popularize the hell out of it, get the ridiculously wealthy to fund it, and make it an international sensation. *glances at history momentarily* Would you like the examples listed alphabetically, chronologically, or in order of importance?

Sadly, it never has been about adventure and exploration. I recall well the news stories of the 1960's warning us that if we let the Soviets get to the Moon before us that they would use it as a base to launch nuclear missiles against us. It was a silly idea, but it was the reason we spent $25 billion ($130 billion in today's money) going to the Moon.

Today it seems GW gave NASA the retrn order becuase he's worried now that China is growing, the Chinese may grab that Helium-3 before 2020

I agree that China and others are starting to nip at the heels of the U.S. in space and that is a factor in these decisions, but NASA does not really admit that.

As for Helium3, right now the market for helium3 is about the same as the market for uranium was in 1850. If China spends billions to get helium3, it will be a waste of money. That could change in the future if fusion reactors that use it are developed, but there are other possible fusion reactions, such as boron-hydrogen, that have similar benefits to helium3, such as no radioactivity and no neutron production. If one of those is developed, there will never be a mass market for helium3.

By 2020 I think NASA folks could get to the Moon by buying a vacation in the Bigelow's Moon Resorts. They could get a group discount or something.

Seriously though, I perceive recent announcement about starting a moon base assembly in 2020 as a setback. Previous plans projected manned landing in 2016 and then in 2018. Since president Bush choose 2020 as a deadline, NASA chose that as a target date. They're playing safe, aren't they? The fact is that they lost the exploration spirit soooo long ago. Shame on you, NASA.

They have not lost the spirit. They have merely lost the money. And that is not their fault, it is the people's fault, through their elected representatives in congress. You and I and others on this forum are all for more spending on space, but I have been hanging out in some non-space places online and the recurring question I see is, "why are we wasting money on sending people to space at all". With attitudes like that we are limited to small private projects. No more $25 billion to go to the Moon in less than 10 years. Actually, more like $130 billion today, adjusting for inflation.

The question should be "why are 'we' wasting billions of dollars on sending people to hell at all".

The only problem is, as stated above here, is economics, not physics or material engineering. And not so much the economics of spending so much on space, but off course the launch costs and zero-return on money-spending. At least, nothing concrete in terms of money.

If the launch costs would drop of a cliff, that would be the ony way to get things started firmly. What's the economic point of launching something into orbit where the launch itself costs 100 million and the thing that they want in orbit just a couple of million? That makes no sense at all.

And another problem is that the workforce of NASA and of every other government related space-agency, don't want to loose their jobs. So why make something with 100 people if you have a few thousands of people to keep busy?

Imho, we need a space-elevator, a business-manager who transforms every space-agency and some people who come up with good ideas and not these half-baked-egocentric flims of ideas.

Damn, it's sad for everyone on this planet.

My point is, the moon by 2018 is feasable, but only if they are willing to reach thÃ¡t goal and not just to keep everyone busy.